Reply #40: "Show me what constitutes "the party" first. [View All]

[welshTerrier2]

well that's a very interesting point ... i could ask you the very same question ... my best shot would be that the Party Chair and the Party's website and perhaps its most prominent media representatives are the public face of the party ...

so let's list some of the people: Dean, Bill Clinton, Hillary, Kerry, Warner, Biden, Clark, Schumer, Reid, Pelosi and probably a few others ... and again, the Party's website ...

does the overriding message from this group seem to suggest that our foreign policy is not just inept but corrupt????? do these people, as a group, seem to speak out regularly that the Bill of Rights is being intentionally dismantled by the bush administration????? maybe i just missed it ... please provide a convincing overall picture that this is the message the party is sending to the American people ... or do you think we should view what constitutes "the Party" in a different way ... the thing is, that i agree with a point i thought you were making that essentially, the Party has failed to exist as a central, cohesive entity ... that is exactly part of the problem here ...

and as for cutting off funding for the war, you create a very interesting problem for those of us who oppose the war ... would it be your contention that once any war begins, it's inappropriate to use the ONLY POWER CONGRESS HAS to cutoff funds for the war ????? that seems to be implicit in your argument that once the war started, we have to continue to fund it because we have to ensure the safety of the troops ... essentially then, once a President goes to war, NOTHING can be done to stop him until he next stands for election ... is that your position on the role of Congressional oversight?????

funding for the war should be cut off NOW ... without a budget to continue this endless idiocy, bush would be forced to withdraw the troops ... your argument seems predicated on the idea that he would keep the troops in Iraq and they would be defenseless because there would be no funding to provide them with the necessary protection ... i think the case is an unrealistic scenario ... they'll be much safer when they are taken out of the country and out of a situation that can NEVER be won militarily ...